Uncovering the Truth: The Elusive History of Homosexuality

[Dremmer]

Because gay people are a minority. 97% of the population is straight. And not all nongay humans are anti-gay.

 

[DaveC426913]

Because gay people are a minority. 97% of the population is straight. And not all nongay humans are anti-gay.

OK, I grant those facts. But they do not actually provide an answer to the question.

 

[Evo]

Because gay people are a minority. 97% of the population is straight. And not all nongay humans are anti-gay.

Some polls have numbers up to 20% of the US population is gay. Although more people are willing to officially go on record as being gay, I think it would be safe to assume that we could easily double or triple the number of gay people that do publicly admit to it.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003432940_gays16m.html

 

[Pinu7]

Some polls have numbers up to 20% of the US population is gay.

A "study" and a poll are nonequivalent. I doubt 20% of the populace would identify themselves as gay. In addition, "homosexuality" is often used subjectively; Alfred Kinsey believed that there is a spectrum of sexuality. No one is fully gay nor strait.

 

[Evo]

A "study" and a poll are nonequivalent. I doubt 20% of the populace would identify themselves as gay. In addition, "homosexuality" is often used subjectively; Alfred Kinsey believed that there is a spectrum of sexuality. No one is fully gay nor strait.

A poll is the only way to get a feel for what percent of the population would consider themselves gay, you can't do a "study" to find that out, not without "polling" your study group.

 

[dOwnWitHiT]

What is "anti-gay"??

Loaded question indeed.

What is anti-gay but not anti-homosexual sex?

What does it mean to choose to have sex with someone of the same sex in one instance or exclusively over the course of your life?

Does this differ from being "gay"? How?

Is that different from being "homosexual"?

What does it mean when you choose to have a same sex encounter(s) as a distinctual sexual experience but are decidedly heterosexual as defined by yourself and society?

What is human free will?

What part of us is animal?

What does it mean to be human?

What is human choice?

What does it mean to "decide"?

What does it mean to "decide for"?

What does it mean to "decide against"?

What is human sexual choice?

What is produced by human thought and desire when it is reinforced by conscious action and disconnected from instinct?

What is "anti-necrophilia"?

What is "anti-bestiality"?

What is "anti-pedophilia"?

What is "anti-pro-hetero"

Why it "anti-natural selection"

Why has nature/evolution defined the "norms" of male/female roles?

What is "civilized" warfare?

What are the "rules" of human war?

What is a "war crime"?

Why is it generally acceptable to kill a human enemy first who has communicated their desire and ability to kill you when the opportunity arises?

ad naseum...

We are animal bodies with extra-animal awareness which allows us choices unavailable to the rest of the animal kingdom in a profound way...we know what we are doing in almost all circumstances.

We have potential actions and hence choices wired into our consciousness moment to moment...kill/not kill, murder/not murder, steal/not steal, to make war or insist on "peace", live in slavery or fight for freedom, rape men/women/children or not, turn on the TV or read a book, to live fastidiously or like a pig...etc. One of our unique abilities is to TRAIN OURSELVES...to subdue or reinforce our instinctual urges to do whatever we want to the point of over-influence/non-influence or balance/imbalance.

Stimulate your orifices however you want as long as it's consensual among adult minded humans...but "anti-gay" is the same as "anti-hetero". Be yourself. Be civilized. Be polite. Try not to offend.
Understand that tolerance is not indefinite otherwise we lose our humanity. Your choices will not always be accepted. It is not generally accepted as normal to identify your whole lifestyle by a sexual choice or a color or a sound or even a religion.


Don't believe polls that don't sample the population in general and don't reveal the questions used. Ulterior agendas are rampant and distort the truth.

My two and a half pennies.

Peace

 

[Pinu7]

A poll is the only way to get a feel for what percent of the population would consider themselves gay, you can't do a "study" to find that out, not without "polling" your study group.

Let me clear this up why I differentiate poll and study using an example.

POLL:
"Are you gay?
[] Yes
[] No"

STUDY Questionnaire:
"1. Do you identify yourself as gay?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
2. Are you in a relationship?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
3. If you are strait, have you ever had homosexual tendencies
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] I identify myself as gay.
4. Rate the attractiveness of this man on a 1-5 scale
_____ (enter number here)"

A poll is always direct. Information is extracted from poll results directly. A study, however, extracts indirect information. The researches may have then used the questionnaire to determine the "sexually" even though it may contradict what sexual orientation they identify themselves with. These studies are used to try to find out how many closeted homosexuals there are.

Twenty percent of Americans identifying themselves as gay sounds too high to be true, therefore that information cannot be obtained by a simple poll.

 

[Evo]

Let me clear this up why I differentiate poll and study using an example.

POLL:
"Are you gay?
[] Yes
[] No"

STUDY Questionnaire:
"1. Do you identify yourself as gay?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
2. Are you in a relationship?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
3. If you are strait, have you ever had homosexual tendencies
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] I identify myself as gay.
4. Rate the attractiveness of this man on a 1-5 scale
_____ (enter number here)"

A poll is always direct. Information is extracted from poll results directly. A study, however, extracts indirect information. The researches may have then used the questionnaire to determine the "sexually" even though it may contradict what sexual orientation they identify themselves with. These studies are used to try to find out how many closeted homosexuals there are.

Twenty percent of Americans identifying themselves as gay sounds too high to be true, therefore that information cannot be obtained by a simple poll.

Apparently you haven't seen well done polls, your study is a poll, so I'd say we agree, the information needs to be obtained by a questionaire, whatever you wish to call it.

 

[Char. Limit]

I say that some people might be anti-gay for fear that a gay person would be attracted to THEM, and that creeps them out. I've met two or three people like this so far.

 

[DaveC426913]

The issue isn't whether it's a poll or not, the issue is whether the participants were self-selecting.

If it were not a random selection and instead were opt-in, then the numbers would surely be skewed downward.

 

[feathermoon]

If accurate data could be had, then I'd like to see what percentage of humans are gay in the developing world where population growth hasn't yet stagnated, compared to the developing where population growth is stalling. This as a possible test for whether homosexuality is caused by overpopulation conditions or not.

In either case. I would guess anti-gay notions are purely social. Conformity seems to be the glue of society, even if you're a society of apparent non-conformists.

 

[Duude]

Actually the OP's question was well put.

He's asking a question while assuming what he's asking is indeed true of the straight population. If not, then why do gays despise straight people?

 

[DanP]

He's asking a question while assuming what he's asking is indeed true of the straight population. If not, then why do gays despise straight people?

Its a stereotype based on centuries of persecution of homosexuals in just about every form possible in (western) society, starting with church dogma, labeling homosexuality as pathology and not variance in specialty literature, till recent times, sodomy criminal laws (USA supreme;s court only banished totally sodomy laws in 2003 , IIRC) to criminal acts against random gay persons.

So yes, there is plenty of social behavior to allow a person to form a stereotype that our society has a beef with homosexuality. We are opening up slowly, but still not enough to change the stereotype.

The OPs question was correct. Your objection is not.

 

[Pythagorean]

If my understanding is correct:

Humans have been successful as a species using diploid reproduction.

If we're diploids, but we're all psychosocially homosexuals, then our species wold go extinct, since we can't reproduce homosexually.

So this puts a survival constraint on us probabilistically: not homosexual. It makes sense then that homosexuality is not commonly practiced by most societies at large. But this doesn't speak about tolerance.

As for tolerance: Most humans aren't tolerant of anything that they're not. Whether they're religious, atheist, gay, straight, crackpot, scientist, goody-two-shoes, criminal: people always find ways to justify their position as being the superior one (the ones that are active enough to display intolerance, anyhow)

Anyway, there are plenty of places in the world where homosexuality is openly embraced. In history, Rome had a reputation with homosexuality: it gained and lost social acceptance many times.

IMO, the many forms of Christianity brought about the most recent bout of long-term intolerance towards homosexuals (along with many other forms of intolerance).

 

[EnumaElish]

Does the OP imply gays are not human, or merely they are all self-haters?

 

[DaveC426913]

Does the OP imply gays are not human, or merely they are all self-haters?

He implies nothing of the kind.

He didn't say all humans; it is clearly meant to imply a tendency.

For example: 'why are fire engines red', does not imply 'all fire engines are red'; it implies there is a tendency for fire engines to be red.

 

[Char. Limit]

He implies nothing of the kind.

He didn't say all humans; it is clearly meant to imply a tendency.

For example: 'why are fire engines red', does not imply 'all fire engines are red'; it implies there is a tendency for fire engines to be red.

Why are fire engines red anyway?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why are fire engines red anyway?

I surmise that fire-engine designers thought at the time that it was the colour that would get the most attention. Subsequent testing has since revealed that day-glo yellow is more visible, and many trucks are being painted this colour.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ah. Apparentlyhttp://www.platonicrelationship.com/fireengines.html" .

Fire engines are, in fact, red because:

• Because they've got 8 wheels and 4 people on them
• 8 + 4 = 12
• There are 12 inches in a foot
• One foot is a ruler
• There was a ruler named Queen Elizabeth
• A ship named Queen Elizabeth sails the seas
• In the seas are fish
• On the fish are fins
• The Fins fought the Russians
• And Russians are red.

And that's why fire engines are red. Because they're always rushin'

 

[dreiter]

...Perpetuating is not the only factor. Homosexuaility has been shown to arise in animal societies in over-populated conditions. It can be argued that keeping everyone from fighting each other to extinction over scarcity of mates is one way of perpetuating the species.

...As you say, logically, since homosexuals do not pass on their genes as directly as heteros, the trait should be quite quickly bred out. Yet empirical evidence shows it is not.

That means, ipso facto, that it is a trait that is serving some evolutionary advantage - for the good of the species.

...And that's why fire engines are red. Because they're always rushin'

Dave you are officially awesome. I had always wondered about the 'being gay is a genetic anomaly since it goes against the genetic goals of species' idea, but you have clarified many things. However, I would like to mention that I think the above quotes can be argued against with the statement, "society/nurture is what encourages/discourages gayness."

What I mean is, if homosexuality was vastly more prevalent in ancient Rome, or Celtic cultures, etc. and not prevalent during other times of history, can we not say that gayness is a result cultural/social/nurture bias and not genetics?

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave you are officially awesome.

Thanks. I needed that.

What I mean is, if homosexuality was vastly more prevalent in ancient Rome, or Celtic cultures, etc. and not prevalent during other times of history, can we not say that gayness is a result cultural/social/nurture bias and not genetics?

It would be virtually impossible to determine with any accuracy the prevalence of homosexuality in history. All we have to go on is how much or little it is reported in literature. And that is probably far more determined by the acceptability of authors writing about it than about any actual prevalance. How many people would be willing to out themselves in, say, the Dark Ages?